Latest stories
Digital, People, Smart & Co.

Smart cities – but only skin deep

Cit­ies are sub­ject to con­stant pres­sure from digit­al change. The desire is to use digit­al tech­no­logy to help meet cur­rent and future urb­an chal­lenges. The hip new expres­sion for this is the “smart city”. But, to the det­ri­ment of the cit­ies and their inhab­it­ants, the real­ity of many intel­li­gent urb­an pro­jects is actu­ally rather dif­fer­ent – due in no small part to the digit­al cor­por­a­tions and their mar­ket power.

The phrase “digit­al trans­form­a­tion” can often be found on the web­sites of many cit­ies right now. But more is not always bet­ter, as observ­ers might con­clude when view­ing the digit­al trans­form­a­tion of the cit­ies and their infra­struc­tures up and down the coun­try. The reas­on lies in the excess­ive and neb­u­lous hitch­ing of the term “digit­al” to the Lat­in­ate word “trans­form­a­tion”. In many cases it has become noth­ing more than a mean­ing­less catch­word, yet cit­ies have eagerly latched onto this latest example of the digit­al “zeit­geist”. While many town halls are still puzz­ling over how to do digit­al­isa­tion, many of those respons­ible are being rail­roaded by the digit­al express train – powered and steered by tech­no­logy com­pan­ies. They are clutch­ing a roadmap show­ing the way to intel­li­gent urb­an devel­op­ment, so-called smart cit­ies.

In many cases, the goal itself is for­mu­lated in only the vaguest of terms and gets obscured by the pleth­ora of buzzwords lin­ing the route, such as “agil­ity”, “Inter­net of Things” and “sus­tain­ab­il­ity”.

From buzzword to cre­at­ive class
The Digit­alcour­age organ­isa­tion com­pares smart cit­ies to a mar­ket­ing para­dise, claim­ing: “Per­haps the name came first (pre­sum­ably coined by a com­pany) and then the under­ly­ing concept – because what exactly con­sti­tutes a smart city is only now slowly emer­ging from the dis­cus­sions.” The Uni­ver­sity of Stut­tgart uses the word “smart” as a mod­ern buzzword which can denote more or less any­thing, and in a study entitled “Rethink­ing the Smart City”, the Rosa Lux­em­burg Found­a­tion states that “smart city” has mul­tiple mean­ings. In fact, it claims, “this buzzword was rap­idly taken up by cer­tain pro­fes­sion­al groups and elites”, at which point it spread like wild­fire. The research­ers who pro­duced the study believe that a “cre­at­ive class” has emerged: “Smart cit­ies attract smart cit­izens and smart cit­izens attract smart money.”

It then comes as little sur­prise to note that it is con­sult­ants who are driv­ing the whole ven­ture, with muni­cip­al employ­ees and cit­izens trail­ing along behind as pas­sen­gers. The next smart stop? Who knows!

Cit­ies and res­id­ents on the defens­ive
Speak­ing of cit­izens: city lead­ers might well be temp­ted by the sound of digit­al ser­vices and solu­tions for altern­at­ive trans­port, lower energy con­sump­tion and great­er cit­izen par­ti­cip­a­tion when mak­ing their plans for the future – but, as every­one knows, noth­ing comes for free. And so cit­ies, their lead­ers and their res­id­ents are quickly put on the defens­ive.

In some cases this is due to extern­al pres­sure and a lack of know­ledge and resources. This is because the main mas­ters of “intel­li­gent” action in smart city pro­jects are not the muni­cip­al employ­ees, but digit­al com­pan­ies with their solu­tions, their mono­poly of know­ledge and their insa­ti­able hun­ger for data.

One of the reas­ons for this is that many ser­vices are now out­sourced to extern­al cor­por­a­tions. The Rosa Lux­em­burg Found­a­tion believes that cit­ies then find them­selves in a vicious circle: “The more ser­vices they out­source and the more infra­struc­ture they privat­ise, the more depend­ent they are on play­ers like Google (…).”

In oth­er cases it is because their cit­izens’ interests do not neces­sar­ily coin­cide with the sales tar­gets of Amazon, Cisco, Google etc. Accord­ing to Digit­alcour­age, the term smart city is now little more than a mar­ket­ing tool. To back up its claim, the asso­ci­ation quotes from the book “Against the smart city” by US author Adam Green­feld: “Com­pan­ies are turn­ing the smart city into a mar­ket where they can push their own products – they cre­ate their own demand (…)”.

This state of affairs no doubt delights the tech­no­logy com­pan­ies. After all, their profits rise with every privat­isa­tion and with every “intel­li­gent” solu­tion sold. Cit­ies and their cit­izens are becom­ing increas­ingly depend­ent. From the com­pan­ies’ point of view this is indeed smart in the sense of shrewd or clev­er. How­ever, all we have then are: smart cit­ies – but only skin deep.

Ger­man Sum­mary
Smart Cit­ies, aber nur ober­fläch­lich
Städte stehen unter dem per­man­en­ten Druck der digitalen Ver­än­der­ung. Der Wun­sch: Die städtischen Heraus­for­der­ungen von heute und mor­gen mith­il­fe digitaler Tech­nik aufzulösen. Das Mod­e­wort dah­inter heißt Smart City. Doch die Real­ität intel­li­genter Stadtvorhaben sieht anders aus – vor allem auf­grund digitaler Konzerne und der­en Markt­macht, zum Nachteil der Städte und ihr­er Bür­ger.


By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.